Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Conceptual design and parametric optimization of self-propelled semi-submersible repair ships: a novel equipment providing maintenance and repair support at sea

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Marine Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Safety of ships and/or offshore structures at sea is increasingly crucial as seaborne activities intensify. However, maintenance and repair of them suffering marine accidents away from shipyards are an often overlooked area, with existing maintenance and/or repair ships either being of limited workshops and facilities or incapable lifting them out of water for underwater engineering. A conceptual design of a self-propelled semi-submersible repair ship is proposed for the first time to facilitate the spot maintenance and repair of damaged ships and/or offshore structures at sea, which is obviously able to reduce the time, costs and risks of transporting them from accident scenes to shipyards onshore. Furthermore, this paper focuses on parametric design and multi-objective optimization problem of this novel equipment. The ratio of deadweight to principal dimensions, working deck area and average daily cost considering marine emissions trading scheme are simultaneously chosen as objectives of this problem. Both the weighted ideal point method and the NSGA-II algorithm are used to obtain the optimization results of a 50 thousand dwt self-propelled semi-submersible repair ship and the relations and differences between the optimization results of two methods are analyzed. The research results indicate that the parametric design and multi-objective optimization method can provide theoretical support for the preliminary design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clarkson Shipping Intelligence Network (2019) Post-panamax containership 15.000+ TEU contracting numbers. https://www.clarksons.net/n/#/sin/timeseries/browse. Accessed 15 Feb 2020

  2. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (2019) Safety and Shipping Review 2019. https://www.agcs.allianz.com/news-and-insights/reports/shipping-safety.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2020

  3. Kimber A (2006) Future ship concepts for repair and maintenance at sea. In: The 2nd World maritime technology conference (WMTC2006). The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, London UK, pp 1–11

  4. Dev AK, Saha M (2018) Dry-docking time and labour. Int J Marit Eng 160:A337–A379

    Google Scholar 

  5. Celebi UBT, Turan EK (2011) A supply chain management model for shipyards in Turkey. In: 14th International Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean (IMAM2011). Int Maritime Assoc Mediterranean, Genova Italy, pp 551–557

  6. Caprace JD, Petcu C, Velarde MG, Rigo P (2013) Optimization of shipyard space allocation and scheduling using a heuristic algorithm. J Mar Sci Technol 18(3):404–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Christer AH, Lee SK (1997) Modelling ship operational reliability over a mission under regular inspections. J Oper Res Soc 48(7):688–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moan T (2005) Reliability-based management of inspection, maintenance and repair of offshore structures. Struct Infrastruct E 1(1):33–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wasalaski R, Anderson R, Gant G (2001) The float-on/float-off heavy lift and return home of USS Cole. Nav Eng J 113(3):101–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Xie XL, Xu DL, Yang JB, Wang J, Ren J, Yu SJ (2008) Ship selection using a multiple-criteria synthesis approach. J Mar Sci Technol 13(01):50–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Caprace JD, Rigo P (2011) Ship complexity assessment at concept design stage. J Mar Sci Technol 16(1):68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaspar HM, Rhodes DH, Ross AM, Erikstad SO (2012) Addressing complexity aspects in conceptual ship design: a systems engineering approach. J Ship Prod Des 28(4):145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Parsons MG, Scott RL (2004) Formulation of multicriterion design optimization problems for solution with scalar numerical optimization methods. J Ship Res 48(1):61–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hart CG, Vlahopoulos N (2009) An integrated multidisciplinary particle swarm optimization approach to conceptual ship design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(3):481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Diez M, Peri D (2010) Robust optimization for ship conceptual design. Ocean Eng 37(11):966–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yao J, Han D (2013) Improved barebones particle swarm optimization with neighborhood search and its application on ship design. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  17. Veluscek M, Kalganova T, Broomhead P, Grichnik A (2015) Composite goal methods for transportation network optimization. Expert Syst Appl 42(8):3852–3867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Li XB (2009) Multiobjective optimization and multiattribute decision making study of ship's principal parameters in conceptual design. J Ship Res 53(2):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Papanikolaou A, Zaraphonitis G, Boulougouris E, Langbecker U, Matho S, Sames P (2010) Multi-objective optimization of oil tanker design. J Mar Sci Technol 15(4):359–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sekulski Z (2011) Multi-objective optimization of high speed vehicle-passenger catamaran by genetic algorithm: part II computational simulations. Pol Marit Res 18(3):3–30

    Google Scholar 

  21. Priftis A, Boulougouris E, Turan O, Papanikolaou A (2018) Parametric design and multi-objective optimisation of containerships. Ocean Eng 156(5):347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cheng X, Feng B, Chang H, Liu Z, Zhan C (2019) Multi-objective optimisation of ship resistance performance based on CFD. J Mar Sci Technol 24(1):152–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE T Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li AD, He Z, Zhang Y (2016) Bi-objective variable selection for key quality characteristics selection based on a modified NSGA-II and the ideal point method. Comput Ind 82:95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang N, Zhao WJ, Wu N, Wu D (2017) Multi-objective optimization: a method for selecting the optimal solution from Pareto non-inferior solutions. Expert Syst Appl 74:96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Turan O, Olcer AI, Lazakis I, Rigo P, Caprace JD (2009) Maintenance/repair and production-oriented life cycle cost/earning model for ship structural optimisation during conceptual design stage. Ships Offshore Struct 4(2):107–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhao JL, Yang LQ (2018) A bi-objective model for vessel emergency maintenance under a condition-based maintenance strategy. Simul Trans Soc Model Sim 94(7):609–624

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gaythwaite JW (2004) Design of marine facilities for the berthing, mooring, and repair of vessels, 2nd edn. American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Biobaku T, Lim G, Cho J, Parsaei H, Kim S (2015) Liquefied natural gas ship route planning: a risk analysis approach. Procedia Manuf 3:1319–1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wei ZK, Xie XL, Wei M, Bao TT (2019) Meteorological information extraction algorithm for ship routing. J Mar Sci Technol Taiwan 27(6):523–531

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wang K, Fu X, Luo M (2015) Modeling the impacts of alternative emission trading schemes on international shipping. Transport Res A Pol 77:35–49

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lindstad E, Bø TI (2018) Potential power setups, fuels and hull designs capable of satisfying future EEDI requirements. Transport Res D Transp Environ 63:276–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin CK, Shaw HJ (2017) Feature-based estimation of preliminary costs in shipbuilding. Ocean Eng 144:305–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kretschmann L, Burmeister HC, Jahn C (2017) Analyzing the economic benefit of unmanned autonomous ships: an exploratory cost-comparison between an autonomous and a conventional bulk carrier. Res Transp Bus Manag 25:76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. China state shipbuilding corporation limited (2013) Practical handbook for ship design, 3rd edn. National Defense Industry Press, Beijing (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Boveri A, Silvestro F, Gualeni P (2017) Ship electrical load analysis and power generation optimisation to reduce operational costs. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on electrical systems for aircraft, railway, ship propulsion and road vehicles & international transportation electrification conference (ESARS 2016), IEEE, Toulouse France, pp 1–6

  37. Kanellopoulou A, Kytariolou A, Papanikolaou A, Shigunov V, Zaraphonitis G (2019) Parametric ship design and optimisation of cargo vessels for efficiency and safe operation in adverse weather conditions. J Mar Sci Technol 24(4):1223–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China [Grant Number 2017YFC0805309] and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [Grant number 3132019303].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinlian Xie.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Notations and descriptions

Appendix 1: Notations and descriptions

Notations (unit)

Notation descriptions

R (ton/m3)

Ratio of deadweight to principal dimensions

S (m2)

working deck area

E (dollars/day)

Average daily cost considering METS in a voyage of carrying out MR works

DWT and \({\text{DWT}}_{0}\) (ton)

Deadweight and predetermined deadweight, respectively

L, B, D and T (m)

Length, breadth, depth and draft, respectively

\(C_{{\text{B}}}\)

Block coefficient

v (kn)

Sailing speed

\(P_{{\text{E}}}\) (kW)

Total power

(L/B)min and (L/B)max

Lower and upper bounds of the ratio of length to breadth, respectively

(B/T)min and (B/T)max

Lower and upper bounds of the ratio of breadth to draft, respectively

(D/T)min and (D/T)max

Lower and upper bounds of the ratio of depth to draft, respectively

\(C_{{\text{B}}}^{\min }\) and \(C_{{\text{B}}}^{\max }\)

Lower and upper bounds of block coefficient, respectively

vmin and vmax

Lower and upper bounds of sailing speed, respectively

Fn and Fnmax

Froude number [37] and its upper bound, respectively

N

Total number of conditions and \(n \in \{ 1,2, \ldots ,N\}\) means the nth condition

\(P_{n}\) (kW)

A required power under the nth condition

\(r_{nm}\)

A coefficient, 1 if the nth condition in the mth situation is required, otherwise 0

\(P_{{{\text{re}}}}^{m}\) (kW)

A power that is counted twice in the mth situation

\(P_{{\text{M}}}\)

Shaft power

\(\omega\) and \(\varphi\)

Parameters to calculate \(P_{{\text{M}}}\)

\(t_{n}\) (day)

Working time under the nth condition

\(\mu\)

Area coefficient

\(U_{{{\text{carbon}}}}\) (dollars)

Payment of carbon trading cost in a voyage based on METS

\(U_{{{\text{cost}}}}\) (dollars)

Total cost except for \(U_{{{\text{carbon}}}}\) in a voyage

F (dollars)

Fuel cost in a voyage

\(\psi\) (dollars/ton)

Fuel price

\(u\) (g/kW h)

Fuel consumption rate

H (day)

Voyage time

\(\sigma\) (dollars/ton)

Price of purchasing or selling carbon emissions per unit

Q (ton)

total carbon emissions in a voyage

\(\xi\) (ton/day)

average of daily carbon emission limits

\(\tau\)

CO2 emission coefficient of fuel

\(E_{{\text{C}}}\) and \(E_{{\text{I}}}\)

sets of equipment in continuous and intermittent load, respectively

\(P_{{\text{C}}}^{i}\) and \(P_{{\text{I}}}^{j}\) (kW)

rated powers of the ith (\(i \in E_{{\text{C}}}\)) equipment in continuous loads and the jth (\(j \in E_{{\text{I}}}\)) equipment in intermittent loads, respectively

\(k_{i}\) and \(k_{j}\)

Demand factors of the ith (\(i \in E_{{\text{C}}}\)) and jth (\(j \in E_{{\text{I}}}\)) equipment

\(\lambda\)

Simultaneous utilization factor

\(\varepsilon\)

A small amount

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, X., Zhao, R. & Zhu, Y. Conceptual design and parametric optimization of self-propelled semi-submersible repair ships: a novel equipment providing maintenance and repair support at sea. J Mar Sci Technol 26, 243–256 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-020-00733-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-020-00733-6

Keywords

Navigation